Article; Seduced by ad? Take a pill

Seduced by ad? Take a pill

JENNIFER WELLS
Toronto Star, Mar. 27, 2005

Hi.

My name's Julie.

Last night I did a striptease for my husband. I was wearing black
stockings and a black garter belt (he loves that look) and lacy black
panties. Viewed from a certain angle you couldn't tell I was wearing
some extra padding just in case I was suddenly hit with a nasty bout of
anal incontinence.

Sorry. That's a bit stomach churning. But I'm only stating the facts.

The facts, that is, about Xenical, a weight loss prescription drug for
the "considerably overweight." By considerably overweight, the drug's
manufacturer, Hoffman-La Roche, is targeting consumers with a so-called
Body Mass Index of 30 or greater.

Xenical, says the company on the drug's website, is also aimed at
people who have a body mass index of 27 or greater and additionally
have other risk factors ‹ high blood pressure is one.

The consumer, on the website, is cautioned about the side effects of
the drug: because Xenical works by "blocking the absorption of dietary
fat," it is "likely" that those taking the drug will experience "some
changes" in bowel habits.

These may include "gas with oily discharge" and an inability to
control bowel movements.

None of this information appears on the alluring ads for the drug, one
of which ran full-page in this week's Maclean's magazine, featuring the
rear end and upper thigh of the aforementioned "Julie."

In fact, the name of the drug doesn't appear, either. The faceless
Julie tells us that she has "tried and tried to lose weight on my own
for so long. Then a friend at work told me there are medical weight
loss treatments available."

Julie's advice: ask your doctor.

Why the informational striptease?

Because Roche is playing by the rules, that's why.

The regulations in this country, such as they are, broadly prohibit
direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.

An amendment made to the Food and Drugs Act in the late '70s allows
for so-called reminder ads, in which a drug company may advertise a
product name and its price but is prohibited from naming the disease
the drug is meant to treat.

Twenty years later, drug companies were given leave to run so called
"help seeking messages" in which the medical disorder is discussed ‹
obesity, erectile dysfunction, depression ‹ but the drug itself is not
named. Hence the mystery surrounding "Julie."

The former example recalls the day when subway cars seemed to be
suddenly flooded with advertisements for Alesse. "No one remembers how
you arrive, it's how you leave" went an Alesse ad line. Huh?

The drug company was selling birth control pills, but could not, as
per the regulations, say so. And yet the consumer was getting much more
emotional information than a product name. In fact, the very absence of
the clarification of what Alesse was used for only enhanced the hipness
of the ad campaign.

The Julie ads are troubling in a couple of respects. First, the
bold-faced promotional line under the butt-thigh photo says: "What
would you do with a few pounds less?"

The question seems not at all to fit with the obese target market for
Xenical.

Then there's the butt-thigh image itself. The butt appears to be very
youthful and very firm as does the thigh, which begs the question, does
this image realistically relate to the product? Would an obese person
having shed poundage from a weight loss drug end up looking so fine?

And how exactly is this an objective health message? Is the goal to be
healthy, or sexy?

Xenical's consumer information cautions that the drug is not a magic
pill. Yet the ad ‹ rather, the message ‹ certainly leaves the
impression that this is one heck of an elixir.

Help-seeking messages are, by definition, "non-promotional": the drug
is not identified, nor the manufacturer, nor is there any implication
that the unnamed drug is the sole treatment for the disease in
question.

The information is deemed to be "objective." The consumer will
subsequently become "informed" of side effects, etc., by consulting
with his/her physician.

And yet the consumer could be forgiven for thinking that such ads are
nothing but promotions ‹ and persuasive, emotive promotions at that ‹
for special pills for which they just haven't figured out the name.

Messages of this type are not submitted to any pre-clearance procedure
by Health Canada, but I can tell you that subsequent to the launch of
the campaign the Marketed Health Products Directorate did take a look
at the "I am Julie" ads and concluded that they qualify as help-seeking
messages.

The ads merit further discussion for this reason: since 1998, Health
Canada has been working on health protection legislation renewal with
the aim of hauling half-century-old legislation into the modern age.
Direct to consumer advertising will be a small, but important, part of
that. What is it we want?

The United States and New Zealand allow direct-to-consumer advertising
of prescription drugs. In the U.S., the trend is toward star-studded
endorsements. Last week, Pfizer launched its newest ad campaign for the
anti-depressant Zoloft. Lorraine Bracco, the raspy voiced shrink on the
Sopranos, has stepped forward as a depression sufferer who says she
lost a year of her life to the illness and credits Zoloft with getting
back "a better version of myself." The website http://www.depression
help.com features a radiant Bracco in multiple poses extolling the
virtues of the drug, which, in accordance with U.S. regulations, lists
potential side effects on the same Web page.

It wouldn't surprise if Zoloft sales were to lift as a result ‹ that's
the objective, after all. And no doubt many media outlets will benefit
from Pfizer ad revenue. But is the patient getting the best health care
message?

Interestingly, while New Zealand is always lumped in with the U.S. as
the only other industrialized nation that allows direct-to-consumer
advertising, the situation there is somewhat different. It isn't that
legislation expressly allows direct-to-consumer advertising, but rather
that such ads were never expressly prohibited. In 1998, New Zealand's
minister of health called for an inquiry into such advertising after a
high-profile campaign for Xenical. That country continues to review the
status of direct-to-consumer advertising.

What road is Canada headed down?

Karen Proud is manager of the Health Protection Renewal Secretariat at
Health Canada. "What we're looking at is the sweep of Health Canada's
protection legislation to modernize and update it," she says.
"Generally, what we've heard through our consultations is that the
existing provisions are out of date when it comes to advertising."

Not surprisingly, stakeholder groups, including pharmaceutical
companies, are split over the desired outcomes. "Some of them want a
complete and total ban on advertising, even going so far as to ban
reminder ads and help-seeking announcements," says Proud. "Other
stakeholders want to see more advertising."

New legislation was meant to be tabled by the spring of 2006 at the
latest. That date now appears shaky. Proud says her group is just
finishing up its international analysis of what happens in other
jurisdictions. "My understanding," she says, "is that New Zealand is
working on some changes to their legislation."

If that's true, it's fair to say that the investigation that led to
amendments was spurred by those Xenical ads. The Julie ads here should
similarly give Ottawa pause. Someone's in charge here, and it isn't
Health Canada.

--
Diva
*****
The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman

NOTE: Top-posting as Carols' post is rather long & I'm not really quoting,
although this stuff is related to the ad she posted.

Every day I get over a dozen spam e-mails promoting online pharmacies that
ship around the world. Xenical is one of the drugs featured, along with
Viagra & Cialis. The spammers don't know I'm the wrong BMI for Xenical & the
wrong gender for the other two ;-)

The messages always get deleted without looking but today Carol's post
arouse my curiosity, so when a couple arrived I decided to investigate
further. The text of the message is as below:

quote Welcome!

Its time to stop wasting money on prescription drugs. Get them online for
80% off!
You can always rely on our fast, discreet and stable shipping!
Viagra, Cialis, Zyban, Prozac, Xenical, And many many more...
Stop paying more than you have too!

Including new Softtabs! the Viagra that disolves under the tongue!!
Simply place 1 half a pill under your tongue, 15 min before sex.

We ship world wide, and no prescription is required!!

-Todays special-
Viagra, Retail price $15.99, our price $2.99
Cialis, Retail price $17.99, our price $3.99

http://linkRemovedToAvoidSpammingThisGroup.com

Check out our party pack as well!
Confidentiality assured!
/unquote

Out of curiosity, I went to their website, clicked on the button to order
100 Orilstat tablets for $199 (the price is the best reason not to take
them!). The site does give you the scoop on the tablets, side effects,
warnings, etc. I was then taken to a page with questions about my height,
weight, gender & a few medical questions, followed by an order page which,
despite being labelled 'Secure Order Form - 128 bit Encryption' was NOT a
secure page at all (no https or little padlock) where I was supposed to
enter my credit card details & shipping info. I didn't go on any further
since there's a limit to my curiosity & I draw the line at spending $199 on
Xenical over an insecure server but my guess is they'd have approved my
order without a prescription & despite having entered my true height &
weight, which do not give a BMI over 27 or 30.

I couldn't find out where in the world they're based, they quote their
prices in dollars but ask for weight & height in metric format & use the
British spelling for 'centres' rather than the US 'centers'. Maybe they're
in Canada or NZ, the point is, anyone can easily obtain these pills online
without prescription (as long as you don't mind the risk to your credit card
details).



"Carol Frilegh" wrote in message
...

Seduced by ad? Take a pill

JENNIFER WELLS
Toronto Star, Mar. 27, 2005

Hi.

My name's Julie.

Last night I did a striptease for my husband. I was wearing black
stockings and a black garter belt (he loves that look) and lacy black
panties. Viewed from a certain angle you couldn't tell I was wearing
some extra padding just in case I was suddenly hit with a nasty bout of
anal incontinence.

Sorry. That's a bit stomach churning. But I'm only stating the facts.

The facts, that is, about Xenical, a weight loss prescription drug for
the "considerably overweight." By considerably overweight, the drug's
manufacturer, Hoffman-La Roche, is targeting consumers with a so-called
Body Mass Index of 30 or greater.

Xenical, says the company on the drug's website, is also aimed at
people who have a body mass index of 27 or greater and additionally
have other risk factors high blood pressure is one.

The consumer, on the website, is cautioned about the side effects of
the drug: because Xenical works by "blocking the absorption of dietary
fat," it is "likely" that those taking the drug will experience "some
changes" in bowel habits.

These may include "gas with oily discharge" and an inability to
control bowel movements.

None of this information appears on the alluring ads for the drug, one
of which ran full-page in this week's Maclean's magazine, featuring the
rear end and upper thigh of the aforementioned "Julie."

In fact, the name of the drug doesn't appear, either. The faceless
Julie tells us that she has "tried and tried to lose weight on my own
for so long. Then a friend at work told me there are medical weight
loss treatments available."

Julie's advice: ask your doctor.

Why the informational striptease?

Because Roche is playing by the rules, that's why.

The regulations in this country, such as they are, broadly prohibit
direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs.

An amendment made to the Food and Drugs Act in the late '70s allows
for so-called reminder ads, in which a drug company may advertise a
product name and its price but is prohibited from naming the disease
the drug is meant to treat.

Twenty years later, drug companies were given leave to run so called
"help seeking messages" in which the medical disorder is discussed
obesity, erectile dysfunction, depression but the drug itself is not
named. Hence the mystery surrounding "Julie."

The former example recalls the day when subway cars seemed to be
suddenly flooded with advertisements for Alesse. "No one remembers how
you arrive, it's how you leave" went an Alesse ad line. Huh?

The drug company was selling birth control pills, but could not, as
per the regulations, say so. And yet the consumer was getting much more
emotional information than a product name. In fact, the very absence of
the clarification of what Alesse was used for only enhanced the hipness
of the ad campaign.

The Julie ads are troubling in a couple of respects. First, the
bold-faced promotional line under the butt-thigh photo says: "What
would you do with a few pounds less?"

The question seems not at all to fit with the obese target market for
Xenical.

Then there's the butt-thigh image itself. The butt appears to be very
youthful and very firm as does the thigh, which begs the question, does
this image realistically relate to the product? Would an obese person
having shed poundage from a weight loss drug end up looking so fine?

And how exactly is this an objective health message? Is the goal to be
healthy, or sexy?

Xenical's consumer information cautions that the drug is not a magic
pill. Yet the ad rather, the message certainly leaves the
impression that this is one heck of an elixir.

Help-seeking messages are, by definition, "non-promotional": the drug
is not identified, nor the manufacturer, nor is there any implication
that the unnamed drug is the sole treatment for the disease in
question.

The information is deemed to be "objective." The consumer will
subsequently become "informed" of side effects, etc., by consulting
with his/her physician.

And yet the consumer could be forgiven for thinking that such ads are
nothing but promotions and persuasive, emotive promotions at that
for special pills for which they just haven't figured out the name.

Messages of this type are not submitted to any pre-clearance procedure
by Health Canada, but I can tell you that subsequent to the launch of
the campaign the Marketed Health Products Directorate did take a look
at the "I am Julie" ads and concluded that they qualify as help-seeking
messages.

The ads merit further discussion for this reason: since 1998, Health
Canada has been working on health protection legislation renewal with
the aim of hauling half-century-old legislation into the modern age.
Direct to consumer advertising will be a small, but important, part of
that. What is it we want?

The United States and New Zealand allow direct-to-consumer advertising
of prescription drugs. In the U.S., the trend is toward star-studded
endorsements. Last week, Pfizer launched its newest ad campaign for the
anti-depressant Zoloft. Lorraine Bracco, the raspy voiced shrink on the
Sopranos, has stepped forward as a depression sufferer who says she
lost a year of her life to the illness and credits Zoloft with getting
back "a better version of myself." The website http://www.depression
help.com features a radiant Bracco in multiple poses extolling the
virtues of the drug, which, in accordance with U.S. regulations, lists
potential side effects on the same Web page.

It wouldn't surprise if Zoloft sales were to lift as a result that's
the objective, after all. And no doubt many media outlets will benefit
from Pfizer ad revenue. But is the patient getting the best health care
message?

Interestingly, while New Zealand is always lumped in with the U.S. as
the only other industrialized nation that allows direct-to-consumer
advertising, the situation there is somewhat different. It isn't that
legislation expressly allows direct-to-consumer advertising, but rather
that such ads were never expressly prohibited. In 1998, New Zealand's
minister of health called for an inquiry into such advertising after a
high-profile campaign for Xenical. That country continues to review the
status of direct-to-consumer advertising.

What road is Canada headed down?

Karen Proud is manager of the Health Protection Renewal Secretariat at
Health Canada. "What we're looking at is the sweep of Health Canada's
protection legislation to modernize and update it," she says.
"Generally, what we've heard through our consultations is that the
existing provisions are out of date when it comes to advertising."

Not surprisingly, stakeholder groups, including pharmaceutical
companies, are split over the desired outcomes. "Some of them want a
complete and total ban on advertising, even going so far as to ban
reminder ads and help-seeking announcements," says Proud. "Other
stakeholders want to see more advertising."

New legislation was meant to be tabled by the spring of 2006 at the
latest. That date now appears shaky. Proud says her group is just
finishing up its international analysis of what happens in other
jurisdictions. "My understanding," she says, "is that New Zealand is
working on some changes to their legislation."

If that's true, it's fair to say that the investigation that led to
amendments was spurred by those Xenical ads. The Julie ads here should
similarly give Ottawa pause. Someone's in charge here, and it isn't
Health Canada.

--
Diva
*****
The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman